Choose country

The Bible and hermeneutics

Hermeneutics is the formal process by which the interpreter employs certain principles
and methods in order to derive the author’s intended meaning. Naturally, this
is foundational to all theological studies, and before a biblical theology of creation
can be built, it is necessary to discuss the hermeneutical approach that should
be utilised and how it should be applied to the text of Scripture, and in particular,
the creation account of Genesis

After Domenichino, Wikipedia.org
The biblical account of creation simply assumes that God had endowed man with the
faculties to communicate with his Creator.

Biblical inerrancy

Presuppositions and prior understandings have always played a significant role in
the hermeneutical process, and one such presupposition is biblical inerrancy.
Inerrancy is a complex doctrine, but it is internally coherent, and consistent with
a perfect and righteous God who has revealed Himself. Broadly speaking, the doctrine
of inerrancy identifies Scripture as true and without error in all that it affirms,
including its affirmations regarding history and the physical universe.1 Article IX of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
states:

‘WE AFFIRM that inspiration, though not conferring
omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the
Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.

WE DENY that the finitude or fallenness of these writers,
by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God’s Word.’

Concerning the role of history and science in the interpretation of Scripture relating
to creation and the Flood, Article XII states:

‘WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant,
being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy
are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions
in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses
about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on
creation and the flood.’

Indeed, as Herman Bavinck noted, when Scripture touches on science it does not suddenly
cease to be the Word of God.2

Of course, a high view of Scripture is ‘of little value to us if we do not
enthusiastically embrace the Scripture’s authority.’3 Indeed, many scholars who claim to be evangelical
have either rejected this doctrine outright, or have redefined it to allow for errors
in historical and scientific references. Francis Schaeffer described the denial
of biblical inerrancy as ‘The great evangelical disaster’. He noted
that accommodating Scripture to the current scientific consensus has led many evangelicals
to a weakened view of the Bible and to no longer affirm the truth of all that it
teaches—not only in regard to theology and morality but also regarding science
and history.4 Why, then, have many
so-called evangelical historians and theologians denied inerrancy and infallibility
in relation to history and science? John D. Woodbridge suggests they believe that
if the Bible is only infallible for faith and practice, then it cannot be negatively
affected by evolutionary hypotheses.5
The irony of this position is that in trying to defend inerrancy, they have essentially
given it up!

But even if one affirms the superiority and inerrancy of the special revelation
of Scripture in all areas, what are we to do with science? How does science affect
our interpretation of specific passages and our overall theology? These are pertinent
questions when constructing a biblical theology of creation.

It is often stated that the theologian is the God-appointed interpreter of Scripture,
and the scientist is the God-appointed interpreter of nature. For example, Roger
Forster and Paul Marston present the relationship of the Bible and theology, and
the relationship of nature and science as follows:

2 Books:

Bible

Nature

Human Interpretation:

Theology

Science

The point here is that both books (the Bible and nature) are true and infallible,
but their human interpretations are not.6
In other words, interpretation occurs in both theology and science, which means
there is also a possibility of making interpretive errors in both fields. Thus,
denying a particular interpretation does not necessarily mean or imply that biblical
inerrancy is being questioned or denied. In the same way that a scientist may wrongly
interpret certain scientific data, the theologian may also incorrectly interpret
a particular passage. However, Forster and Marston offer no solution to this problem,
nor do they discuss the methodological problems and issues relating to scientific
research. They simply dismiss the problems of scientific research by merely stating
that there are also problems in biblical interpretation.7
David F. Payne, on the other hand, acknowledges the primacy of biblical revelation
when he states:

‘[I]t must be decided what exactly the biblical teaching is before any criticism
of its accuracy can be made … The majority of Concordists take the scientific
data as their starting-point, and interpret the biblical statements to fit them.
But it is essential to achieve first a sound exegesis of the latter; and then, if
any rapprochement is necessary, it can be made on a firm basis. Biblical exegesis
is paramount, even when the scientific challenge is under consideration.’8

This raises the question of epistemology (the theory of knowledge) and the possibility
of knowing. How can the interpreter know whether his exegesis is accurate or whether
a particular interpretation is the correct one? Can the interpreter know anything
for certain, or should all interpretations be held tentatively? Upon which criteria
can such an assessment be made?

Scripture and the problem of interpretation

It is certainly true that different interpretations of Scripture abound, especially
for those Scriptures which teach about creation. But are all interpretations valid
and equally plausible, or is there only ever one correct interpretation? If there
is only ever one correct interpretation, how can it be determined?

Human language as God’s medium of communication

The Bible is God’s special revelation and its purpose is to communicate specific
truth to all humanity, past, present and future. In order to accomplish this, God
employed common human language as the medium for His message. The biblical account
of creation does not discuss the question of whether God can meaningfully speak
to mankind or whether mankind can understand God. It is simply assumed as ‘self-evident’
that God and mankind could engage in meaningful linguistic communication.9 Thus, Jack Barentsen concludes that
‘God must have endowed man with adequate faculties to respond to and interact
with his Creator.’10 Indeed,
‘Genesis describes God as the first language user … . [He] instituted
language as the vehicle of communication between man and himself.’11 Similarly, Packer points out that Genesis ‘shows
us that human thought and speech have their counterparts and archetypes in [God]’.12
Furthermore, God continued to employ human language as His medium of communication
throughout biblical history. When God spoke directly to Moses, He used intelligible
human language; when He spoke to His prophets He used intelligible human language;
when Jesus taught He used intelligible human language; when He appeared to Saul,
He used intelligible human language.

Nevertheless, there are many who claim that language in general, or the biblical
languages in particular, are somewhat deficient in that they are unable to communicate
with the same precision as modern languages. Hugh Ross, for example, argues that
since biblical Hebrew has a much smaller vocabulary than English, Hebrew words can
convey many different ‘literal’ meanings.13 This is surely a very naïve view of language.
Vocabulary size is irrelevant. Indeed, all languages ‘are quite able to express
complex, deep, or subtle ideas. Virtually anything that can be said in one language
can be said in another, provided one takes enough time.’14

God is sovereign and He wills to be understood (2 Tim. 3:15–17), and actively reveals Himself to us.15 Human language ‘offers
no resistance to his purposes and cannot frustrate his desire to communicate.’16 As E.R. Clendenen succinctly writes:
‘Language works. A skilful reader will experience what a skilful communicator
intended to accomplish through the agency of a text as an interface takes place
between the worlds of the author, text, and reader.’17 Indeed, everyday human experience confirms this
to be so. As innate users of language, human beings readily engage in meaningful
linguistic communication. Such communication is not always easy, but it is never
impossible.

Propositional revelation and truth

God’s linguistic communication to humanity as recorded in the Bible takes
the form of propositional revelation. God supernaturally communicated His
message to a chosen spokesperson in the form of explicit cognitive statements of
truth, and these statements are recorded in sentences that are not internally contradictory.18 As Carl Henry states, ‘the
inspired Scriptures contain a body of divinely given information actually expressed
or capable of being expressed in propositions. In brief, the Bible is a propositional
revelation of the unchanging truth of God.’18
By ‘proposition’, Henry means ‘a verbal statement that is either
true or false; it is a rational declaration capable of being either believed, doubted
or denied’,19 and adds that
‘[n]othing can be literally true but a propositional statement’.20 Likewise, Norman Geisler notes
that ‘the normal and consistent New Testament usage of “truth”
is of truth in the cognitive, propositional sense’.21

Roger Forster and Paul Marston claim that a statement can still have genuine historical
content but be allegorical in form.22
In other words, a distinction is made between historical fact and historical event.
A particular historical fact may be presented in the form of a non-historical event.
But on what basis can one claim that a non-historical event represents a true historical
situation? Such distinctions are not only arbitrary; they lack any coherence, and
are surely motivated by concerns totally external to the Bible. Mcquilkin and Mullen
add:

‘To deny the possibility of words corresponding to reality is ultimately an
attack on the nature and activity of God … Evangelical faith is that God
can communicate and indeed has communicated in words all the truth about ultimate
reality he thinks it necessary for us to know.’23

Viewing the Bible as propositional revelation from God implies there is the possibility
of verifiable facts involved. God has verbally communicated in a propositional form
to humanity, not just truth about spiritual matters but also truth relating to history
and science. If truth was not expressed in this way, then the interpreter can never
be sure of anything—even his own salvation.

In Scripture, propositional revelation most often takes the form of historical narrative.24 Indeed, Rodney Decker points out
that

‘Scripture employs narrative genre deliberately, but it does so in such a
way that the historical basis (event) for the narratival depiction (text) is absolutely
essential. The revelation value of the Bible depends on its history value …
Historical narrative explicitly appeals to history to verify what it teaches: names,
places, events, dates, etc. are cited … . If these references are not trustworthy,
it casts grave doubt over the theology being propounded in narrative fashion.’25

Keep in mind that true communication does not necessarily lead to exhaustive knowledge.
Francis Schaeffer writes:

‘It is helpful … to distinguish between true communication and exhaustive
communication. What we claim as Christians is that when all of the facts are taken
into consideration, the Bible gives us true knowledge although not exhaustive knowledge.’26

He adds: ‘… we can have confidence that this is true history, but that
does not mean that the situation is exhaustively revealed or that all our questions
are answered.’27

The influence of postmodernism

In the 19th century, Søren Kierkegaard, although a deeply religious and
apparently pious man, proposed that true knowledge was completely subjective, and
that absolute certainty was impossible (one must wonder how he was ‘certain’
that this claim was ‘true’). In other words, it is not possible
to express absolute truth in propositional form.28
Thus, Kierkegaard unwittingly became the father of postmodern existentialism. It
is unfortunate that this same kind of postmodern thinking has convinced many interpreters
that it is virtually impossible to be certain of the meaning of a text, especially
the biblical text.29 Many believe
that language ‘cannot accurately communicate thought to another person’s
mind’, and that meaning is relative, especially in relation to the interpreter’s
present subjective perceptions.30
Donald Williams notes that postmodernism ‘manifests itself in literary study
that ignores (or “deconstructs”) traditional issues of meaning or even
aesthetics … .’31
In effect, language and the communication process is ‘deconstructed’.
The usual meaning and implications of common words, grammar, expressions and idiom
are rejected, along with normal interpretive procedures. Instead of being a natural
and intuitive activity, linguistic communication becomes a problematic task with
insurmountable hurdles. This is clearly illustrated by the anti-young-earth-creationist
Mark Noll in his critique of the hermeneutics of certain conservative Christian
groups. He accuses them of

‘… an overwhelming tendency to “essentialism”, or the conviction
that a specific formula could capture for all times and places the essence of Biblical
truth for any specific issue concerning God, the human condition, or the fate of
the world [and] a corresponding neglect of forces in history that shape perceptions
and help define the issues that loom as most important to any particular age.’32

Clearly, Noll thinks that following a systematic procedure when interpreting the
Bible in order to accurately determine what God is saying to all men in all times,
is somehow presumptuous and negligent. This is surely postmodernist existentialism
applied to biblical interpretation!

Bernard Ramm, on the other hand, is more subtle: ‘Revelation is the communication
of divine truth; interpretation is the effort to understand it.’33 Nevertheless, the implication is the same. Although
God communicates inerrant truth, the interpreter may misunderstand it. Despite God
revealing Himself in history as recorded in the Bible, the interpreter can never
really be certain about the meaning of this revelation, and must always remain open
to alternative interpretations. Unfortunately, those who hold such a view rarely
apply it consistently. Their scepticism and uncertainty are almost never applied
to scientific interpretations and conclusions.

In contrast to previous generations,34
we seem to be caught in a state of biblical and theological uncertainty. As Mcquilkin
and Mullen poignantly note, ‘we seem to be in the process of losing any assurance
of certainty about knowing and communicating objective reality. And many evangelicals
are becoming at least moderate relativists.’35
This has serious implications for biblical and theological studies. If the meaning
of a text cannot be known for certain because no particular understanding can claim
to be authoritive, then there is no basis for integrating it with other related
texts in order to produce an overall theological statement or synthesis.

In fact, the problem runs deeper still. Interpretive uncertainty essentially implies
that it is meaningless to talk about the authority, infallibility and inerrancy
of the Scriptures because the Scriptures do not really tell us anything—or
at least anything of which we can be certain. The meaning ascribed to each text
is merely a human interpretation which may or may not be correct. This, of course,
means that the central pillars of Christianity, the doctrines of sin, atonement
and judgment, the virgin birth, and the physical resurrection are mere interpretations
which may or may not be correct. Indeed, since historic Christianity is merely a
systematic framework of biblical interpretations, it too may not be correct. Therefore,
this view of biblical interpretation can only lead to liberalism or agnosticism—and
in many cases, it has done exactly this.

Furthermore, arguing that interpretation is always uncertain due to the supposed
limitations of language is ultimately self-defeating and incoherent, as Mcquilkin
and Mullen point out:

‘If we do not do interpretation on the premise that God has spoken and that
he can be understood, that truth about him can be communicated accurately in words,
we run the danger of ending up where postmodern thinking has taken some proponents:
speaking nonsense. That is, they use words in an attempt to communicate their own
thought about how impossible communication with words is.’36

Is it possible, then, to be certain about the meaning of a given text? If we assume
that Scripture is revelation from God, that it is the word of God, then it must
be possible for any person, regardless of their culture, language or historical
situation, to comprehend, at least in a general sense, what Scripture is saying.
If God’s communication is not objectively understandable, then He has essentially
failed to communicate. In effect, He may as well not have spoken at all! If this
is the case, then on what basis can the Bible be regarded as the Word of God? What
authority can it possibly have? Indeed, what is the point of having an authoritative,
infallible, inerrant message if it is impossible to ascertain its meaning?

Historical-grammatical exegesis

The key to understanding the biblical text is to apply a hermeneutic which takes
into account the historical and literary context. This can be done by employing
historical-grammatical exegesis. This method presupposes that human beings
are rational creatures capable of linguistic communication, and that linguistic
communication is meaningful and objective. Historical-grammatical exegesis involves
a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and
circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships
of the words which comprise the text. In essence, it attempts to formalize what
language speakers do automatically and unconsciously whenever they read a book,
watch television or engage in conversation.

The importance of a systematic approach to interpreting Scripture cannot be underestimated.
Walter Kaiser points out that

‘… the basic teaching of all of sacred theology is inseparably connected
with the results of our hermeneutics; for what is that theology except what Scripture
teaches? And the way to ascertain what Scripture teaches is to apply the rules and
principles of interpretation. Therefore it is imperative that these rules be properly
grounded and that their application be skillfully and faithfully applied. If the
foundation itself is conjecture, imagination, or error, what more can be hoped for
what is built on it?’37

Space does not allow for a detailed exposition of the historical-grammatical method
and how it is applied,38 but two
articles of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics are worth noting.
Article XIV explicitly affirms the historical basis of Scripture:

‘WE AFFIRM that the biblical record of events, discourses
and sayings, though presented in a variety of appropriate literary forms, corresponds
to historical fact.

WE DENY that any such event, discourse or saying reported
in Scripture was invented by the biblical writers or by the traditions they incorporated.’

This is reinforced by Article XX which affirms that the Bible also speaks truly
on matters relating to history, science and the natural world:

‘WE AFFIRM that since God is the author of all truth,
all truths, biblical and extrabiblical, are consistent and cohere, and that the
Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or
anything else. We further affirm that in some cases extrabiblical data have value
for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations.

WE DENY that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching
of Scripture or hold priority over it.’

Note also that the denial explicitly disallows the teachings of other fields, including
philosophy and the sciences, to ‘trump’ the teachings of Scripture.

But will the historical-grammatical method bring certainty regarding the teaching
of Scripture? There are, of course, numerous difficult passages which can be understood
in different ways, and although a good exegetical case can be made for several options,
no consensus presently exists. Yet even in such cases it is still possible to be
certain of the broad thrust and theological message even though some of the details
are difficult to comprehend. As Packer puts it: ‘One can master the argument
… and still be unsure of the precise meaning of occasional sentences in it.’39 Nevertheless, the vast majority
of biblical teaching is very clear, and even those passages which at first seem
confusing, can be more easily understood when the interpreter performs a thorough
analysis of the text’s genre, structure, language, and historical and cultural
setting.

Indeed, the task of interpreting the Bible is apparently much simpler and less error-prone
than interpreting scientific data. Scientist Taylor Jones acknowledges that the
‘Word of God is inherently more reliable than science’, and that Scripture
is much easier to interpret than nature.40
Likewise, Robert C. Newman admits that since general revelation is not in human
language, ‘it is more liable to misinterpretation than is special revelation’.41 David Diehi also concedes that
propositional revelation ‘has a certain advantage over nonpropositional revelation’.42 In any case, all misinterpretations
and misunderstandings of Scripture result from false presuppositions, insufficient
data, or an inadequate or inconsistent hermeneutic. However, all these problems
can be overcome if the interpreter is willing to thoroughly investigate the text’s
historical and grammatical context.

Cultural accommodation?

Theologians of a more liberal persuasion have long believed that divine revelation
necessitated the use of time-bound and erroneous statements. This position was never
held by the Reformers or ascribed to by the protestant scholastics (Lutheran or
Reformed), but arose in the eighteenth century in the thought of Semler and his
contemporaries.43 Nevertheless,
there is now a growing trend among evangelicals to redefine inspiration and inerrancy
to allow for errors when Scripture speaks on matters of history and science. Inerrancy
is limited to truth concerning spiritual and moral matters. For example, Bernard
Ramm, under the influence of German higher critical thinking, was convinced that
‘language of accommodation’ contained errors.44
Such language ‘employs the culture of the times in which it was written as
the medium of revelation’,45
and that all direct references to nature are most likely ‘in terms of the
prevailing cultural concepts’.46
This is essentially another way of saying that Scripture is always wrong when it
contradicts modern scientific conclusions. As Woodbridge points out, Ramm ‘is
actually advising [evangelicals] to consider departing from the central tradition
of the Christian churches regarding the authority of Scripture’.47 Likewise, Paul Seely believes a ‘more biblical
approach’ to relating science and the Bible is to accept the historical-grammatical
meaning of Genesis 1 but to acknowledge that

‘it reflects the cosmology of the second millennium BC, and that modern science
presents a more valid picture of the universe … there is no biblical reason
why the theological message in Genesis 1 cannot be eternally valid, while the package in
which it came was a temporal concession to the people of that time.’48

While it true that an infinite God must in some way accommodate Himself to finite
human ways of knowing in order to reveal His nature, law and Gospel, this does not
imply the loss of truth, nor the lessening of Scriptural authority. Accommodation
occurs specifically in the use of human words and concepts, and refers to the manner
or mode of revelation, not to the quality and integrity of the revelation itself.49 It is adaptation to human finitude,
not accommodation to human error. Communication directed at mankind may involve
less precision, but imprecision must not be confused with error. Inerrantists do
not require scientific precision in order for a statement to be true.50

In any case, why stop at the possibility of errors in only those texts which relate
to history and science? Why not allow for errors in spiritual, moral and ethical
matters also? If the language of accommodation does indeed allow for errors, then
limiting such errors to nature and history is surely an arbitrary decision. Ramm,
Seely and others who adopt the same approach appear to accept that although much
of Scripture is true, some parts are false, and the interpreter decides in which
category a particular text should be placed. Thus, the standard of truth ultimately
becomes whatever the interpreter decides at that time.

The stability of Scripture and theology

Unlike scientific data, theories and conclusions, the Scriptures have remained essentially
the same for centuries, with respect to both text and canon. The Old Testament canon
has been well known and generally accepted since the beginning of the Christian
era, and the New Testament canon was officially recognized by the fourth century
(i.e. the Church recognized what had always been authoritative since the Canon was
closed by the death of the last Apostle51).

The actual accepted texts (i.e. the current consensus of what the originals said)
of both testaments have undergone minor revisions as a result of textual and philological
studies of newly discovered manuscripts. But these changes are relatively few in
number, and have not caused any significant changes in Christian belief or practice.
No doctrine of Christianity rests on a disputed text.

The central doctrines and theological motifs of Christianity have remained remarkably
stable and unchanged since the time of the early church. As Michael Bauman points
out, ‘[T]he Apostle’s Creed, although it has been refined and expanded
over time, has never gone through any extensive and fundamental changes,
let alone several’.52

In relation to the doctrine of creation, W.F. Albright notes that it is ‘unique
in ancient literature’ and that modern scientific cosmogonies ‘show
a disconcerting tendency to be short-lived’. Indeed, he seriously doubted
whether science ‘has yet caught up with the Biblical story’.53

Conclusion

If the interpreter begins his task by assuming that the Bible is God’s special,
inerrant, propositional revelation to humanity in human language, then most interpretive
problems will quickly disappear. Biblical interpretation is sometimes difficult,
but careful and judicious exegesis is worth the effort, and gives virtual certainty
or at least a very high level of confidence in one’s interpretation.

Yet, so many interpreters continue to be intimidated by the truth claims of modern
science, and either deny what the Scriptures apparently teach or stretch them to
fit the current scientific consensus. The truth claims of science always seem to
trump exegesis, regardless of how thorough it is and how well done. At this point,
one would do well to heed the warning of John D. Hannah:

‘[In the 19th century] science appeared to speak with the inerrancy
that we accord to Scripture alone. It behooves us to remember to be cautious not
to neglect the exegesis of Scripture and the qualitative gulf between special and
general revelation.’54

E.J. Young asks:

‘Why is it so difficult to [get at the meaning the author sought to convey]
with the first chapter of the Bible? The answer, we believe, is that although men
pay lip service to the doctrine of creation, in reality they find it a very difficult
doctrine to accept.’55

Indeed, it appears that when considering the doctrine of creation, the difficulty
is not understanding the teaching of Scripture, but believing
it …

Forster and Marston, ref. 7, p. 217. They cite John 4:38 in support, but this verse is clearly a metaphor.
In commanding the disciples to reach out to the Samaritan people, Jesus employed
a common saying as an illustrative metaphor. While Jesus’ command relates
to a real and actual situation, the individual elements of the metaphor are not
referring to real and historical people, places and events. In other words, Jesus
did not have a literal reaper and a literal field in mind. Return to text.

This does not mean that other biblical genres do not contain
propositional statements, or that statements from these genres cannot be rephrased
or transformed into propositional statements. Return to text.

Williams, D.T., The great divide: the church and the post-modernist
challenge, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological
Society, Colorado Springs, CO, p. 2, 14 November 2001. Return to text.

Luther, for example, held that it was possible to be certain
about the meaning of Scripture. Thomas, R.L., General revelation and biblical hermeneutics,
The Master’s Seminary Journal9:16, Spring 1998.
Return to text.

Diehi, D.W., Evangelicalism and general revelation: an unfinished
agenda, J. Evangelical Theological Society30:448, December
1987. However, he attempts to nullify this concession by claiming the advantage
‘is easily exaggerated’. Nevertheless, his concession is still an admission
that the authority of Scripture is greater than that of general revelation. Return to text.

Ramm, ref. 33, p. 53. Ramm actually seems to be a bit confused
on this point. He states elsewhere (Ramm, ref. 33, p. 51) that he believes the biblical
writers ‘do not teach any cosmological system or follow any cosmogony,
ancient or modern. Rather their writings are prescientific and
phenomenal or non-postulational’ (my emphasis). Ramm’s belief that Scripture
is ‘prescientific’ is surely an attempt to insulate it from scientific
criticisms, since (despite Ramm’s claims to the contrary) ‘prescientific’
is another way of saying it is not correct. Return to text.

Seely, P.H., The first four days of Genesis in concordist theory
and biblical context, Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith
49(2):95, 1997. Return to text.

Note that verses such as Isa 55:8–9 do not imply that God’s thoughts cannot
be expressed in human language because they are so much higher than our own. As
Carson (ref. 3, p. 37) points out, the context shows that God’s thoughts are
‘higher’ in the moral realm, and therefore ‘our response
must be repentance, not some kind of awareness of the ineffable’. Return to text.

E.g., stating that the approximate value of p (pi)
is 3 is no less truthful than saying it is 3.1415926535897932384626. Both values
are approximations but the latter is more precise. See also Grigg, R., Does the
Bible say pi equals 3.0?Creation17(2):24–25, 1995.
Return to text.

The NT scholar F.F. Bruce writes (The New Testament Documents:
Are they reliable? IVP, Downers Grove, IL, 1960): ‘The NT books did not
become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical
list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already
regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and generally
apostolic authority, direct or indirect … . [Church] councils [did] not impose
something new upon the Christian communities but codif[ied] what was already the
general practice of those communities.’ Return to text.

Bauman, M., Between Jerusalem and the laboratory, Journal of Creation11(1):19, 1997; my emphasis. Return to text.

We have supplied this link to an article on an external website in good faith. But we cannot assume responsibility for, nor be taken as endorsing in any way, any other content or links on any such site. Even the article we are directing you to could, in principle, change without notice on sites we do not control.

Affiliated Sites

Creation Ministries International (CMI) exists to support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history.

CMI has offices in Australia, Canada, Singapore, New Zealand, United Kingdom, South Africa and United States of America.